Charles Fleetwood, Lord Protector

Rumours abounded as Oliver Cromwell grew nearer to death that he would name Charles Fleetwood, rather than his unimpressive son Richard, his successor as Lord Protector. In OTL this did not happen, and Richard's claim to fame is little more than overseeing the end of recent England's first and only republican experiment, and coincidentally being the longest living head of state of England of all time (despite a rule of only 9 months, he died aged 85 in 1712).

At this point my knowledge of the situation ends. Like most, I have a rough knowledge of the Civil War and basic ideas about the Protectorate - what I am looking to learn and explore here is the possibility of the Protectorate, under Fleetwood, lasting somewhat longer and perhaps even becoming permanent. History books tend to claim that the only reason it ended was that Richard Cromwell was so weak a leader that parliament rode roughshod over him, and the only figure who could maintain order would be a restored King. Would Fleetwood, with his closer relationship with the Army, have been able to maintain stability? If so, would the Protectorate have lasted, or would this simply have postponed the inevitable? If it lasted, then for how long? How far can we take this before the butterfly effect makes it impossible to realistically speculate on how long it would last?

Thanks in advance for any contributions.
 
I was thinking of doing a TL on this, and love the concept. :)

Anyway, I do think that if Fleetwood took over as Lord Protector that a number of things could happen. Firstly he was popular in the army and had experience as Lord Deputy of Ireland, so he'd have a good support base (especially from George Monck). So I think he could've kept stability, and the 'Rule of the Major-Generals' would probably be brought back in under him, alongside the recreation of the 'Second Protectorate Parliament', seeing as one of the only times he went against Oliver Cromwell was over the dissolution of this Parliament. Thus now we have quite a stable government, alongside a man who has dictoral powers with the army at his side.

Next comes the problem of Spain, at the time of the 'Restoration' the Anglo-Spanish War was going on, and soon after Charles II made peace and sold Dunkirk to France but kept Jamaica. Now if Fleetwood became Lord Protector I could see a peace a year or two later, in which the Commonwealth keeps Dunkirk and also in the war we will see Spanish Treasure Fleets be destroyed and eventually possibly capturing Hispaniola or Cuba.

Fleetwood's domestic policies would be interesting, and we are likely to see a lot less toleration of Catholics, and a lot more power for the more radical protestant sects. Over time we may see some powers going to Parliament from the Lord Protector, but not many. I could also imagine we'd see something special for the 'Confederation of New England', due to the Puritans there.

Though whether the Commonwealth could last is another matter, Fleetwood would need to select a good leader next, and then we'd begin to see more radicals pop up during his time in office. Who knows, the Commonwealth may go properly Republican a Protector or two after Fleetwood.

As a side-note, we are likely to see Ireland become a problem for him again, and if it does, expect Fleetwood to be extremely harsh. Also the Virginian colony would be a problem, as it was the most Royalist of all the colonies in the 'New World'.
 
Fleetwood could hold the Protectorate together through his lifetime, which would be interesting in itself. However, I think he's exactly the wrong man for making the Protectorate into a permanent institution. He seems to have been, if anything, even more inflexible and harsh in his treatment of the Irish and dissidents than Cromwell himself. The bit about the 'Second Protectorate Parliament' is interesting, but I suspect he's no better at tolerating actual discussion and dissent than Cromwell was. His 'request' for the LP Richard Cromwell to not be commander-in-chief of the army illustrates this, I think.

When Fleetwood dies in 1692, his successor will not be a veteran of the Civil War. It will be a man who grew up in the Protectorate, and so has little reason to resist calls for liberalisation. With a nation run as a military dictatorship with no working Parliament for 40 years, that's not going to go well (see Revolution, French). To survive, the Commonwealth needs a theoretical basis for Republicanism and a Parliament which actually does some things and exercises some authority in its own right. I don't think Fleetwood can give this.

The Irish become a footnote. Cromwell's policies carried forward another 40 years makes Ireland 60% Protestant Anglo-Scottish; as an Irish friend of mine remarked to a North American Native, "where do you think they learned that trick?".
 
While a longer Protectorate isn't good news for England it wouldn't necessarily be that bad for Ireland. If Fleetwood carry's on Cromwell's policies, which by the standards of the time were quite benign then you will see some surviving Celtic culture in Ireland, if he takes a leaf out of the French book...
 
While a longer Protectorate isn't good news for England it wouldn't necessarily be that bad for Ireland. If Fleetwood carry's on Cromwell's policies, which by the standards of the time were quite benign then you will see some surviving Celtic culture in Ireland, if he takes a leaf out of the French book...

Uhm.... that happens not to be the case. A hefty proportion of Ireland's population was wiped out during the Cromwell years. The polite way to describe it would be ethnic cleansing except that resorting to pogrom was a bit too regular.

Of course the island itself will be fine, and after all the Scots themselves are Celtic, so in a sense you're quite right.
 
Uhm.... that happens not to be the case. A hefty proportion of Ireland's population was wiped out during the Cromwell years. The polite way to describe it would be ethnic cleansing except that resorting to pogrom was a bit too regular.

Of course the island itself will be fine, and after all the Scots themselves are Celtic, so in a sense you're quite right.

Quite right. As an American who loves all the British Isles and the peoples in them (Except for those damned Shetlanders, everybody KNOWS they are the absolute biggest [Expletive-deleted][Obscene Gerund][Unbelievably offensive and gross expletive deleted][Anatomically Explicit Epithet]! Uh, I just got a warning from God (Idi). Never mind!

Anyway, personally, TODAY I think some Republicanism would be quite GOOD for Merry Old England! And Jolly Old Scotland! And Ancient Old Wales! And poor benighted Ire-oops, they've got it already.:eek: But I don't think the economy could take the hit. Where, after all, would Britain's tourist trade be?

As far as the Protectorate surviving to the present day, it's ASB. You'd need an educated middle AND working class to prevent the people from running off to follow the next demagogue to come along. It sounds silly, I know. But Monty Python's "Life of Brian" shows what happens when an uneducated mob runs around following their newest "leader"(even when he wants nothing to do with them:D).

Were not the people of the time getting sick of the Puritans? The Calvinist rectitude? Did this not sap the staying power of the Commonwealth?
 
I've wondered about this many times myself. Fleetwood is an anti-Irish radical in his religion/world view but I think he could have help stabilise England in the long-run, just not an England we would recognise.

He favoured the Cromwellian Parliament of the Commons and appointed life peers in the Lords (dubbed Senators by some, but a short lived experiment). Cabinet style Inner-Council was being formed during the 1650s as well.

Ultimately, if Republicanism sticks in Britain it will be very 'Prussian'. If the CofE if it remains the state church will be Presbytarian. Lord-Protector will be a presidential position, dominated by heavily politicised Army, while the President of the Inner Council in Parliament will be a de facto, submissive Prime Minister.

For some time this will be a stable government, but by the time of the Enlightenment, i wouldn't be too shocked to see it become a very stodgy system, but then its entirely down to who dominates. Regardless, the precedent of 'revolution' and radical ideas mgiht make Britain ripe for unrest in the future.
 
Were not the people of the time getting sick of the Puritans? The Calvinist rectitude? Did this not sap the staying power of the Commonwealth?

Some, no doubt but that wasn't the main problem. After all, the Restoration was supported by many of those "Presbyterian" Roundheads who had supported the Blasphemy Laws in 1646.

What they were really getting tired of was high taxation, mostly for the support of the Army, whose only function (as an island power Britain needed a strong navy, but not a big army) was to enforce collection of the taxes to pay for itself - - and so on in an everlasting circle. The taxpaying classes wanted an end to that burden, and if that meant having the King back, and the Bishops with him, then so be it.

As for Fleetwood, imho he has two choices. He can anticipate Monk by calling a free election, and accept a Dukedom from the restored King, or he can be just one more ephemeral ruler, like Richard Cromwell or Lambert. I don't really see any viable third way. He can appease the taxpayers only by wholly or partly disbanding the Army, and without the Army he has no power base.
 
Top